Summary: Mr B complained that TfL was wrong to engage bailiffs to remove his vehicle after it was stolen and then delayed in returning it. We find, the decision to remove the vehicle is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because he could have appealed to the London Tribunals or filed a statutory declaration with the TEC. However, TfL should apologise to Mr B and pay him £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the delay in returning the vehicle. It should also ensure that its bailiffs are reminded when to seek appropriate advice from TfL.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that TfL arranged for enforcement agents to remove his vehicle for unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), issued for non-payment of the ULEZ charge, despite him having explained that his vehicle had been stolen. The vehicle was then not returned to him for several months.
2. He says that the removal of the vehicle resulted in loss of earnings. He considers that TfL should compensate him for his losses and for his time and trouble.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I am investigating Mr B’s complaint about the delay returning his vehicle after TfL had agreed to do so on 13 October 2022.
4. I am not investigating Mr B’s complaint about the issuing of the PCNs, the subsequent recovery action and the impounding of the vehicle. Mr B could have appealed to the London Tribunals against the PCNs. He could also have filed a Statutory Declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court if he did not receive the PCN, or a response to his representations or appeal.
5. I am not investigating Mr B’s complaint that the bailiffs damaged his vehicle. Once TfL has considered this complaint through its own procedures, Mr B can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman about damage. However, we would need to consider whether this would be a matter to be determined in court or via insurers.
6. I am not investigating Mr B’s complaint that, after the vehicle’s road tax expired while it was being held by the bailiffs’ agents, he received a penalty from the DVLA when it was returned to him. This is a matter between him and the DVLA, and we have no jurisdiction to consider the DVLA’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
10. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter or take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal or go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
11. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and supporting papers and discussed his complaint with him. I have made enquiries of TfL and considered its response. I have also shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr B and TfL and considered comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

13. Mr B owns a van which he uses for his business. In February 2022, he reported the vehicle stolen to the Police. The Police stopped the vehicle at the end of the February, and it was collected by Mr B at the start of March.
14. Between February and early March TfL sent Mr B six Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for driving in the London Ultra Low Emission Zone without paying the applicable charge. These PCNs allowed Mr B to make a discounted payment within 14 days or to make formal presentations within 28 days. TfL then sent two further notices in respect of each PCN outlining further action that would be taken.
15. Mr B says he responded to each of the six PCNs using TfL’s online challenge platform, notified them that the vehicle had been stolen and provided the crime reference. He says that TfL requested a copy of a crime report, and he contacted the Police in April to be told that the crime reference would suffice.
16. However, TfL says it first received a representation from Mr B in late May. It rejected this as a late representation and advised him that he could provide mitigating evidence within 14 days as to why the representation was late.
17. As no payment or further correspondence received, Charge Certificates and Warrants were issued, and the case was passed to bailiffs acting on TfL’s behalf. After writing to Mr B on 16 August, the bailiffs removed Mr B’s vehicle on 1 September. A debt of £2,289.00 was due at that stage.
18. On 8 September, Mr B complained in writing to the Ombudsman and wrote to the TEC. Mr B wrote to the bailiffs on 9 September explaining that the vehicle had been stolen, and on 20 September asking where the vehicle was being kept. The bailiffs did not respond to either letter or did not refer the matter back to TfL for advice as should have been done.
19. On 5 October, the Ombudsman asked TfL to respond to Mr B’s complaint through its complaint procedures. On 13 October, TfL wrote to Mr B. It said it had followed the correct processes but agreed to remove charges on the basis that the vehicle was being used while stolen. It said it would instruct the bailiffs to return the vehicle to him.
20. On 25 January 2023, Mr B contacted the Ombudsman again to say that despite multiple attempts to recover his vehicle it had not yet been returned to him. After contact from the Ombudsman, the vehicle was returned to Mr B on 16 February.
21. The next day, Mr B complained to the Ombudsman about damage to the vehicle. He also wanted to complain about loss of income while awaiting return of the vehicle, and that TfL should reimburse his road tax.
22. On 20 February, Mr B advised the Ombudsman that the DVLA had clamped the vehicle the previous day as its road tax and MOT had expired. He considered that TfL should be liable for the £260 charge.
23. TfL has since explained that it clearly told Mr B in its letter of 13 October 2022 that the bailiffs would contact him to return the vehicle. Unfortunately, having failed to respond to Mr B’s letters the previous month, the bailiffs had marked the vehicle as being for collection rather than return. So when Mr B contacted the bailiffs on 9 November, he was wrongly told he would have to collect it himself. The bailiffs’ notes record that Mr B said he would contact TfL directly, but TfL can find no record of such a contact.
24. As a result, the vehicle was not returned until 16 February 2023, some four months later, after Mr B again contacted the Ombudsman.
25. TfL has proposed an ex-gratia payment of £500 to Mr B for the delay and write to him to reiterate its apologies.

My assessment

26. The bailiffs should have contacted the Council for advice when Mr B explained that the car had been stolen. They should then have returned the car when asked to do so by TfL. I note that Mr B said he then wrote to TfL several times, but TfL has no record of such correspondence, so I cannot make findings on this.
27. In any event, it is clear that there was substantial delay in returning Mr B’s vehicle. This has caused him considerable inconvenience, frustration and stress. I have therefore considered what remedy might be suitable for that delay.
28. When considering a remedy for distress, we take into account factors such as: the severity of the distress; the length of time involved; the number of people affected; whether persons affected are vulnerable and any relevant professional opinions.
29. Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.
30. In this case, TfL has already offered a payment of £500. That seems to me a suitable and proportionate remedy in line with our guidance, and I do not consider that there are exceptional circumstances which would warrant a higher sum than this for the distress caused.
31. Mr B has also suggested that TfL should reimburse him for loss of earnings while the vehicle was impounded.
32. We do not normally recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. We cannot usually, on balance, establish a clear and causal link between the fault and the claimed injustice of lost earnings. There are frequently other factors, personal circumstances and choices involved. Such payments are therefore best resolved by the courts.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of the decision date on this complaint, TfL has agreed to:
• Write and apologise to Mr B for its delay in returning his vehicle and the distress and inconvenience caused to him.
• Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X for the distress caused due to the delay in returning his vehicle.
• Ensure that the bailiffs are reminded to ensure they follow the correct protocols on when to refer matters back to TfL for further advice.
34. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find TfL at fault for delay in returning Mr B’s vehicle which caused him distress and inconvenience. TfL should write to Mr B and apologise and make a payment of £500 for distress caused. It should also ensure bailiffs are reminded to ensure they follow the correct protocols on when to refer matters back to TfL for further advice.
36. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman